March 10, 1968 Cesar Chavez ended a 23-day fast for U.S. farm workers in a Delano, California, public park with 4000 supporters at his side, including Senator Robert Kennedy (D-New York). Cesar Chavez led the effort to organize farm workers into a union for better pay, working and living conditions.
March 10, 1969 James Earl Ray was sentenced to prison for 99 years by a court in Memphis, Tennessee, after admitting he murdered American civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. King, who preached and practiced nonviolence, was shot dead by a sniper in Memphis as he stood on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel. The building now houses the National Civil Rights Museum. Witnesses pointing toward the source of the shot that killed King. National Civil Rights Museum at the Lorraine Motel
March 10, 2006 Turkish conscientious objector (CO) Mehmet Tarhan was released unexpectedly from a military prison after being held for having refused service in the army. A court decided that he had already been held longer (23 months) than any possible sentence for the crime. Mehmet TarhanMehmet Tarhan’s supporters He was ordered, however, to present himself again for military service and thus be subject to re-arrest for the same offense.
Becka Robbins of Fabulosa Books packs up LGBTQ+ books to send to parts of the country where they are banned, on 27 June 2024 in San Francisco. Photograph: Haven Daley/AP
The majority of banned books in US public schools last year dealt with people of color, LGBTQ+ people and other demographics, according to a new study from PEN America.
The report also counteracts claims by conservative lawmakers that books being removed from classrooms are sexually explicit and that book bans are altogether a “hoax”, an assertion made by Donald Trump.
There were more than 10,000 instances of books being banned in the 2023-24 school year, PEN America reported, a sharp increase from the previous year, as Republican-led states implemented new censorship laws.
Out of 4,218 book titles that were banned, 1,534 – or 36% – featured people of color, the most censored identity group in book bans. Some removed titles included August Wilson’s Pulitzer-prize winning play Fences and Innosanto Nagara’s A is for Activist, a picture book for children about social issues.
Books featuring people of color were disproportionately targeted in all banned-book categories, the report found, especially in removed historical and biographical titles. Of such banned books, 44% included people of color; more than one-fourth, or 26%, of those books featured Black people.
Advocates with PEN America noted that at the same time as the onslaught of book bannings, more than 50% of young people in the US are children of color, according to 2021 data from the Children’s Defense Fund.
“This targeted censorship amounts to a harmful assault on historically marginalized and underrepresented populations – a dangerous effort to erase their stories, achievements, and history from schools,” said Sabrina Baêta, senior manager for PEN America’s Freedom to Read program, in a press release about the report. “When we strip library shelves of books about particular groups, we defeat the purpose of a library collection that is supposed to reflect the lives of all people. The damaging consequences to young people are real.”
Titles featuring LGBTQ+ characters also made up a sizable number of book bans: 1,066 books, or 25% of all banned titles, included LGBTQ+ people. Transgender or genderqueer characters were specifically targeted in such book bans, as 28% of removed books featuring LGBTQ+ characters included that demographic.
Beyond people of color and LGBTQ+ people, books including disabled people were also affected by nationwide bans. About 10% of all removed titles included characters with physical, learning or developmental disabilities or who were neurodivergent. Several affected books with disabled characters focused on “confidence, self esteem, or experiences with ableism”, PEN America reported.
Meanwhile, only 13% of removed titles included “on the page” instances of sexual experiences. Inferred or “off the page” instances of sexual encounters were included in 31% of banned books.
The vast majority of banned books (85%) were fiction, with 14% being non-fiction and 1% poetry. About 67% of removed books were for younger audiences, PEN America reported.
The ongoing banning of books comes as the Trump administration has cracked down on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts in US public schools and universities. In a memo last week, Trump threatened to withhold federal funding from any schools that refused to eliminate diversity initiatives, such as scholarships for students of certain identity groups and school programming.
I know this is old but I worked hard on it. Now that I got the issues between computers worked out and I am in the process of reinstalling all the programs I need to make the computer do what I want, checking to make sure the issue that came up a week ago from reappearing. The issues of full acceptance and equality for the full LGBTQ+ community. Hugs
Please notice that the entire campaign to erase LGBTQ+ from society started with the false premise that the LGBTQ+, especially children need to be protected from trans people and drag queens. But the same people claim to be grand Christians yet they never address sexual abuse of children in churches or other organizations like foster homes / orphanages. These same people support a man for president that was credibly accused of violently raping a 13, how many more did not report the abuse? They support a man who bragged about barging into the changing rooms of teen girls as they were in different states of being undressed some of them nude during the teen pageants claiming it was his right as the owner. He is a child sex predator by his own words claiming he would date / have sex with his own young not adult daughter. They supported a man convicted of sexually assaulting a woman with the commonly understood phrase raped her. But they claim the real problem is women being raped in bathrooms if trans women are in there also. They support Pete Hegseth for Sec. Of Def. He also has been accused of sexually assaulting / raping a woman and assaulting other women. It was reported that he was often drunk and enjoyed going to places where women take off their clothing and at least one occasion needed to be restrained from going on stage with the nude women. Tell me where is the effort to removed white men from the social media and from the military? Sorry but when they say woke it means anything they dislike just as CRT did. When they say DEI it is them saying the “N” word and that females are inferior to males. Well let me get to separating the posts. Hugs.
And no, she didn’t “earn her money in the divorce”; she built Amazon into what it is/was. She earned her money by working. It’s important to note because of opposition comments about her.
MacKenzie Scott Nice Time Update! by Rebecca Schoenkopf
Turns out that the way she gives money is a really good way.Read on Substack
And now let us check in with breath-of-fresh-air MacKenzie Scott, the heart-of-gold billionaire who spun her share of her divorce from Jeff Bezos after he cheated on her into philanthropy and Yield Giving, a foundation that has so far given out almost $20 billion in unrestricted gifts for social justice, human services (like abortions and health care), education, LGBTQ+ services, playgrounds, historically Black colleges and universities, a total of 2,450 excellent causes that happen to be the ones that piss off Elon Musk and other right-wing chuds the very most!
Turns out, according to a three-year-analysis by the Center for Effective Philanthropy of 800 of the donations her foundation has made, the no-strings-attached way she gives out money is quite effective!
When Scott started handing out unrestricted gifts in 2019, the world of philanthropy got shook. The usual way to go about doling out large sums of cash with a foundation is to give restricted gifts, like for eradicating the rockin’ pneumonia, but not the boogie-woogie flu, or a scholarship fund for sensitive boys with at least a 3.0 who play the flute, or constructing the Phineas Q. Oilman Center for Fracking Studies.
Donors like to direct exactly where their money goes. And they like to have their names on stuff, like etched on a plaque, or a “thank you” in the opera program. Also naming rights are a way to encourage ongoing involvement. Don’t you think dear departed Grandpa Oilman would have wanted his heirs to make sure that his building has plenty of money in trust to keep the center’s roof repaired?
And foundations usually give out grants in response to proposals. This usually starts with announcing the grant: The Betsy VonThundersnatch Foundation For The Arts intends to award $5 million to bring drag brunches to underserved populations. Then nonprofits that work in that area respond with a proposal that assesses the need, lays out project with objectives, includes a step-by-step timetable, detailed budget estimate for renting a van, buying wigs and champagne etc., a pitch of why their organization is the most capable one to meet the need, what the benchmarks for measuring success will be, and so on.
Then after a grantee gets the money, they’re usually required to regularly report back the details of their benchmark-hitting to a board. What some might call micromanaging and others might call responsible stewardship helps foundations and charities solicit gifts, because donors want to know exactly where their money is going and be reassured that it’s not going to get blown fast. Which makes sense! But all of that takes time, and wig money. It can be many months and sometimes even years between when a grant is announced and an awardee can cash a check, and charities have to pay overhead for people to look for grants to apply to, and write the proposals.
But MacKenzie Scott’s Yield Foundation does the opposite of this! They skip the solicitation-and-proposal part entirely, quietly and secretly researching organizations’ track records. And then the foundation cuts a surprise check, with no spending-timetable or strings attached, and lets the nonprofit roll with it. It is bold! It is brave! It is trusting!
And here’s the Center for Effective Philanthropy’s report on how it’s going: The grantees are actually not blowing all of the money. Most are using it to shore up longer-term stability and plan to spend it within two to five years. Some have been able to pay debt, and have reserves and health insurance for their employees for the first time, and they are able to provide more services and expand their missions.
Like the South Texas Food Bank. They were able to give their employees free health care, and also nearly doubled the amount of food they distributed to eight counties and one tribal nation in south Texas with the $9 million Scott’s foundation gave them. Also Kaboom! They build playgrounds, and with Scott’s $14 million they have quadrupled the size of their playgrounds, and have gotten into advocacy too, pushing for elimination of the use of toxic chemicals on playground surfaces.
Eighty-five percent of nonprofit recipients said that Scott’s gifts have helped them improve or expand their programming, and 52 percent reported a greater capacity to respond to the needs of the communities they serve. The organizations that received awards from Scott had double the amount of cash reserves as comparable nonprofits, which is vital for the long-term stability of any organization that depends on the kindness of strangers in a volatile economy.
Ninety-three percent reported that Scott’s grant moderately or significantly strengthened their ability to carry out their mission, and 90 percent said the gift bolstered their financial positions. More than 60 percent said they used the grant to establish credibility with other funders, though 53 percent were concerned that other funders might withdraw their support, believing that recipients didn’t need additional funding. But the other side to that is Scott’s foundation has already done the research, so her endorsement could also encourage more donations. How that will pan out in the end for charities remains to be seen.
And, though the grants don’t require them to, 70 percent of the recipients are tracking the impact of the money, some say even better than they actually were before, because now they have better capacity to do that. Said one, “This grant has allowed us to focus more deliberatively on our metrics and impact to better equip us to answer this question/tell our story/show our impact.”
And what an impact! Samples from the survey: 33,521 loans for a total of $1.26 billion to low-income households to buy homes, start or capitalize businesses, and address their financial needs. Health care for 100,000 new patients. Legal orientation for more than 12,000 refugees, and 200 unaccompanied immigrant minors re-unified with their families, and millions of meals served in the US and other countries.
And her freewheeling gifts are having an impact on other foundations also. More than half of foundation leaders surveyed said that they now thought that their foundations should consider giving out large, multiyear, unrestricted support, too. Which is not simple, because foundations are staffed, structured and budgeted to do things the way they’ve always done them, and it’s hard to get boards to agree on lunch, much less to a complete overhaul on how they do everything, and possibly to re-write of all of their bylaws. But now they have a fine example to follow, and success to point to.
That MacKenzie! She is so humble, it is hard to find pictures of her anywhere, unless they’re from her as Bezos’ plus-one in the old days. And while her ex is out here kissing Trump’s behind, whoring out the newspaper he bought and swanning around Aspen with his affair partner, she is making a difference in a good way. And still the 5th-richest woman in the world.
It’s all lovelier than a drag brunch in June.
OPEN THREAD. (We’ll have something up later too, you know what time.)
I wonder how Ukraine feels about today’s anniversary. sigh
March 5, 1970 The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty went into effect after ratification by 43 nations. The agreement sought to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament, as well as general and complete disarmament. It has since been joined by 189 countries, and is enforced through the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Part of the United Nations, IAEA is the principal intergovernmental organization working on safe, secure and peaceful nuclear technology. It has been involved in the repercussions of the Fukushima earthquake/tsunami disaster as well as the proliferation issues regarding Iran and North Korea. More on the Non-Proliferation Treaty
March 5, 1994 Schoolchildren preparing to turn the keys to destroy the last missile silo in the Ukraine. October 30, 2001 Ukraine, having voluntarily agreed to give up its nuclear weapons following the collapse of the Soviet Union, began their transfer to Russia. Ukraine, which had the world’s third largest weapons stockpile, 130 SS-19 missiles, 46 SS-24 missiles and dozens of strategic bombers, rid itself of all 1300 warheads within about two years. Read more
This writer, Crip Dyke, feels about Dems the way many here do; that they’re worthless doing anything except being polite. But when Dems do what they should, this writer publishes it so that people know. It’s what we should all do until someone with money forms a new party if that’s what people really want. (To me, it’d be easier to jump in and participate in the Dem party, and fix it from within. With numbers, it’d be easy and relatively quick to make the desired improvements. Anyway, here is good news about an issue on which we’ve all been writing and calling.)
Democrats Strike At Heart Of GOP Darkness, Kill Anti-Trans Sports Bill by Rebecca Schoenkopf
In the moment Death stepped on the Senate floor to claim S9, Tuberville reportedly whispered, ‘The horror. The horror.’Read on Substack
Let trans kids play. Image by Phil Roeder. Used under CCA 2.0.
In the 19 long, bitter decades since Trump issued Executive Order 14201, “Keeping Men Out Of Women’s Sports,” generations have been born, come of age, and died buried away from the sun, divided by uncrossable rivers. Few could conceive of the darkness of the soul in those times who have not lived them.
And so our forgotten years of hope reflecting off the waters of that most colonial of rivers, the Potomac, produced the most unexpected flicker yesterday: a filibuster victory in the Senate, blocking the codification of 14201 into law and ban trans participation in girls’ and women’s school sports. To quote Erin Reed:
Republicans called it the “Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act.” Democrats dubbed it “The GOP Child Predator Empowerment Act”. The Senate clerk said it didn’t have the votes.
To misquote Joseph Conrad, the Democratic Party is a droll thing, a mysterious arrangement of spineless yes-men for a futile purpose. The most you can hope from it is some acknowledgement of yourself that comes too late, leaving a crop of inextinguishable regrets. But not March 3, 2025!
And not today, Satan!
The vote was not quite so positive as The Hill would have you believe: They reported that “all Democrats voted against” the bill, recorded as S. 9. While zero Democrats voted for it, two Dems known to waffle in the face of anti-trans attacks did abstain. The Senate’s two independents (both of whom caucus with Democrats), Angus King of Maine and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, both voted against. The final margin of 51-45 included two abstentions from Republicans as well, Shelley Capito (R-WV) and Cynthia Lummis (R-WY). Though Trump hasn’t ruled on the prior state of these Senators as blastocysts, both do appear to be women, curiously enough.
The defeat of S9 marks a rare moment in the 119th Congress in which Democrats hung together. On other votes including prominent Senate confirmations and measures in both the Senate and the House, there have been significant defections. HR 28, the House version of this bill, snagged two Democratic votes (both Texas centrists and both men). In a time when Democratic voters and other lefties have been crying out for principled obstructionism to be waged against Trump and the MAGA agenda, blocking S9 was a largely unexpected win. Calling out trans participation in girls’ and women’s sports has been a particularly effective form of attack by the GOP, even when lying their asses off, as Tommy Tuberville did on FOX:
“We’re getting to a point now where women and girls’ sports and getting ready to be extinct. Because already in states across this country, we have high school teams that are made up of totally boys participating against girls. […And wank, wank, wank.]”
Of course no one other than GOP primary voters have taken Tuberville seriously since his Auburn Tigers lost to 14 transsexual squirrels in Commodore drag. But if you need to hear it from someone who knows better than yr Wonkette, Kate Starbird, former NCAA basketball standout, former professional baller in the ABL and WNBA, and current University of Washington professor, had this to say about Tuberville’s demented lie:
“As a former athlete & current researcher of online rumors & disinfo, today’s atrocious example of the ‘right wing bullshit machine’ in action — anchored on a truly idiotic claim from a football coach turned GOP senator about trans girls making girls sports ‘extinct’ — enrages along both dimensions.”
(Wonkette was so impressed with this quote we are currently reviewing her inventory of dick jokes in preparation for the possible extension of an offer of employment.)
To be clear, under the filibuster rules, which could change if the GOP thinks abandoning this Senate tradition is important enough, the bill needed 60 votes to clear a procedural step — cloture — that would then allow an up-or-down vote on enactment. That final vote would have needed only the barest majority, and a tie can be split by the Vice President. But Republicans are not currently talking about eliminating cloture votes, and as long as the filibuster survives, the Protection of Women & Girls in Sports Act is dead.
Despite this victory depending on the GOP maintaining the filibuster and the fact that Republicans are constantly launching other attacks on immigrants, people of color, teachers, and many others, there’s good reason to celebrate the Dems acting like they know how to win. And many people are celebrating, including another former professional athlete and generally decent person, Chris Kluwe:
“I support and am happy the party came together to stop this.”
Of course the party pooper had to add:
“However, this is what they should be doing on EVERYTHING. I’ve said it before and I’ll keep saying it – we are in an existential crisis as a country. We’re either going to emerge as Americans, or as something else.”
And that is, indeed, where we are. Like a flash of lightning in the clouds, we are glimpsing an ephemeral brightening of hope. We live in the flicker, may it last as long as the old earth keeps rolling! But darkness was here yesterday. The GOP has lost only the first of the ebb.
Snippet (We can read or watch, on the page linked above.):
Chair Walberg, Ranking Member Scott, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
My name is Heidi Shierholz, and I am an economist and the president of the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) in Washington, D.C. EPI is a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank created in 1986 to include the needs of low- and middle-wage workers in economic policy discussions. EPI conducts research and analysis on the economic status of working America, proposes public policies that protect and improve the economic conditions of low- and middle-wage workers, and assesses policies with respect to how well they further those goals. I previously served as Chief Economist at the U.S. Department of Labor.
In considering the topic of “unleashing” America’s workforce and strengthening the economy, I make three main points in this testimony: (1) the Trump-Vance administration has inherited unquestionably the strongest economy for an incoming administration in a quarter-century;1 (2) that strength was driven in large part by economic policy choices by the prior administration and Congress; and (3) the Trump-Vance administration agenda will be profoundly destructive to the incomes and economic security for both the most vulnerable families and the broad middle class. The administration is aiming to gut key income support and safety net programs that provide direct support to tens of millions of working families, and the chaos and uncertainty they are intentionally sowing with reckless power grabs over key economic institutions will likely cause an economic crisis unless it is stopped.
The basic facts about the economy that the Trump-Vance administration inherited
The availability of jobs and the growth in real wages (i.e., growth in the purchasing power of wages after accounting for inflation) are where the rubber meets the road as far as “the economy” goes for working people. On both of these fronts, the economy that the Trump-Vance administration inherited is extremely strong.
In January 2025, when the Trump-Vance administration took office, the unemployment rate was 4.0%, and had been at or below 4.2% since November 2021. The last time the United States saw unemployment that low, for that long, was more than a half century ago. Further, the share of prime-age adults (25–54 years old) with a job was higher during January 2025 than at any time during the business cycle from 2007 to 2019, and near its highest rate in a quarter-century. The labor force participation rate of prime-age adults was also higher than at any time during the business cycle from 2007–2019, and the labor force participation of prime-age women was near its all-time high. Finally, job growth averaged 168,000 per month over the 12 months ending January 2025—a very healthy pace of growth, particularly considering how close the economy is to full employment (when job growth would be expected to slow since there is no longer a large employment gap to be filled).
The purchasing power of workers’ wages, after taking inflation into account, was higher in 2024 than it was at the most recent business cycle peak in 2019 or any point before that. (In other words, real wages were higher in 2024 than they were in 2019 or any point before that.) Further, this was true all across the wage distribution—for low-wage workers, middle-wage workers, and high-wage workers. In fact, bucking the trend of the business cycles of the prior 40 years, wage growth since 2019 has been stronger among low-wage workers than at any other point in the wage distribution. Real wage growth for workers at the 10th percentile, for example, rose by 3.4% annually between 2019 and 2024, for a total increase of 18.2%—the fastest five-year stretch of real wage growth for this group since data started being collected in the 1970s. (snip-MORE)
I have strong feelings about women’s restrooms, too, as we all know; so many thoughts about so many women’s bathroom issues. I’m in agreement with this essay. Stick with it, you’ll see. You might want a tissue.
A Trans Girl Approached Me in the Ladies’ Bathroom and It Bothered Me. Here’s Why. by Natalie S. Ohio
Why the girls’ bathroom is a sacred space for women and how we must seek to keep it that way.Read on Substack
Ugh, no hand soap. Again.
If there’s one thing living in Spain will teach you, it’s that hand washing isn’t priority número uno in public spaces.
Luckily, as someone who grew up here, this is no surprise to me. As Gang Starr once said, “I’m not new to this, I’m true to this.”
In other words, I carry soap sheets wherever I go.
As I was washing my hands in the shopping mall bathroom last week, the door cracked open and a head peeked around.
Big brown eyes appeared from under a blunt-cut fringe. A smattering of adolescent acne decorated soft, rounded cheeks and a set of metallic braces twinkled between glossy pink lips.
Either retro makeup is back in style or rubbing my hands together had sent me ricocheting back to the mid-80s…
We regarded each other for a moment.
“¿Puedo pasar?” May I come in?
Her delicate, childlike voice softly penetrated the silence of the empty bathroom.
“Sí, claro.” Of course.
I smiled and gestured to the vacant stalls and the rows of mirrored sinks behind me.
I wondered if she mistakenly believed from the outside that this was a single-person bathroom. Or maybe she thought I was a cleaner. It wouldn’t be the first time a Spaniard had seen my complexion and automatically assumed I was the help.
I was otherwise a little perplexed as to why she would ask.
She hesitated slightly as she stepped around the door.
“Bueno, es que… soy trans.”
Well, it’s just that… I’m trans.
What I’m about to say may sound strange to some, but here goes:
The ladies’ bathroom plays a surprisingly significant role in girlhood.
I’m not talking about the one at Grandma’s house with its peach-coloured wall tiles, nor the ones in fancy restaurants where you go to check your appearance on a date.
I’m talking about the public toilets that double as makeshift community hubs for women — grubby little social sinkholes you find in nightclubs, bars, and airports that offer a brief moment of tranquillity as the commotion fades behind the closing door.
Restrooms with precarious toilet seats, broken flushes, and “love urself babe ur perfect” scribbled in eyeliner on the inside of the stall.
I’m willing to bet that anybody who has used a public ladies’ room has had at least one memorably positive encounter with someone they’ve met inside.
What’s so special about it? I hear you cry. Men have bathrooms too and nobody bats an eyelid. If anything, the less said about those, the better.
On a functional level, nothing at all.
In fact, the ladies’ very often sucks in comparison to the men’s. A victim of long queues, scarce toilet paper, and the most unflattering lighting known to man.
However, we’re not talking about serviceability. If we were, we wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.
What I’m referencing is much deeper than that. Much more visceral.
I once undid a drunken stranger’s bodysuit in a nightclub bathroom so she could relieve herself before going back out to tear up the dancefloor. If you’ve any idea what a bodysuit is and where its fastening is located, you’ll understand why that’s a tall order.
I’ve witnessed countless girls take their drinks inside and leave them unattended by the sink without any concerns over getting roofied.
There’s nearly always someone giving an empowering pep talk to a broken-hearted friend who needs a boost of confidence.
Blister plasters, boob tape, and tampons are handed out like Werther’s Originals at a Women’s Institute meeting. Pleasant conversation dapples the air. Strangers become new best friends.
Outfits are readjusted, hair is coiffed, perfume is shared, and doors with faulty locks are guarded to prevent accidental walk-ins. Those who are desperate are permitted to jump the line.
It’s where the power of sorority is comfortably displayed.
The girls’ bathroom is one of the few places where female vulnerability isn’t preyed upon.
Conversely, it’s often bolstered and allowed to exist without any need for justification.
Sure, it’s where you go when nature calls. But it also acts as a cocoon-like environment — somewhere you can retreat to when you want to feel… safe.
Nat, why are you waxing lyrical about the loo?
Well, because this recent encounter brought about a bracing realisation for me — a conventional woman with an uncomplicated identity who fits comfortably within the margins of the archetype.
I realised that the person peeking her head around the door wasn’t merely asking for permission to enter the room.
She was asking for permission to belong.
She was giving me the power to accept or reject her appeal to exist freely in a space that—for people like me—is a place of comfort, and for people like her, is commonly associated with hostility and consternation.
The alignment of my biological sex and gender identity affords me the confidence to take up space in social settings where others, with less streamlined identities, may feel reluctant.
Of course, uncertainty is a perfectly natural phenomenon in adolescence — kids are constantly trying to make sense of themselves and explore how and where they best fit in a world governed by grown-ups. And this kid, who looked to be some 14 or 15 years old, is no different.
However, this situation was unique because it didn’t focus on the implicit social hierarchy that comes with a significant age gap.
Instead, our respective positions on the spectrum of womanhood forced us to weigh up the other’s existence.
It was as though she believed that within a shared space her identity would encroach on mine; so announcing that she was trans and verbally acknowledging our differences would help me to legitimise her humanity some.
She asked me if she could come in because there may have been a chance that I wouldn’t have wanted her to.
And that is devastating to me.
“Bueno, hija, ¿qué más da? Pasa, pasa.” So what, kiddo? Come on in.
I headed over to the hand dryer.
“Ay, muchas gracias!”
She smiled sweetly and walked past me in her fishnet tights and patent Dr. Martens.
Transphobia is not an alien concept in countries that operate under organised religion or have a traditional set of social values, such as Spain.
Vox—a prominent far-right political party—has been consistently vocal about its disdain towards transgender people and its desire to prevent their access to base-level human rights. Transgender people are persecuted by conservative political parties and their followers all across the nation.
Adults berating other adults is one thing, but what happens when this toxic, nefarious behaviour falls upon the shoulders of children?
Children are sacred
“Los niños son sagrados” (children are sacred) is a phrase you see and hear typically in response to the mistreatment of children in any form.
Children are revered in Hispanic culture, so why was this particular child so acutely aware of the controversy surrounding her identity? Shouldn’t the innocence we try so hard to preserve in children include transgender children too?
Shouldn’t she be able to exist as comfortably as her peers do?
Had I voiced an issue with her coming into the bathroom, there is no doubt in my mind that she would’ve turned away and left. And that’s what bothered the hell out of me. It upset me that she felt the need to even mention it.
Because who am I? I’m not important. I have no authority over public spaces or gender identity whatsoever.
I don’t care what people do in the privacy of a bathroom stall. I don’t stop to intimidate them or pass judgement.
I’m just a stranger washing her hands at the sink. But luckily for this girl, I’m a kind stranger. Someone whose cup of compassion and understanding runneth over.
The fact that she felt the need to ask stirred up feelings of pity and rage in equal measure.
It disgusts me that this harmless individual possibly has and probably will suffer at the hands of narrow-minded losers who mind other people’s business more than their own.
As if growing up isn’t already fraught with insecurity and a heightened awareness of your differences from others. Being a teenager in today’s world is like wandering into the seventh circle of hell with gasoline shorts on.
Sure, the world is a big, scary place. But the girls’ bathroom is something else entirely, and it should stay that way.
I felt a wave of protectiveness wash over me as I thought about how she must feel on a regular basis. Physically, she was long-limbed and lofty, yet she seemed so small and defenceless.
A kid.
Just figuring herself out, one day at a time.
When she came into the sink area, she told me she liked my outfit — I told her that I have my own clothing line and was wearing one of my newest designs. I offered her a soap sheet and asked her about her makeup — her parents had bought her an eyeshadow palette for her birthday recently. I’ve never been any good with eyeshadow. She doesn’t go a day without it.
So there we were.
Just two gals chopping it up in the girls’ bathroom, enjoying pleasant conversation with someone we’ll probably recall warmly once or twice before returning to the monotony of our everyday affairs.
I suppose that these are the situations we need more of. Just witnessing humans being humans and doing human things.
So often bigots behave as though those they’re prejudiced towards are a subhuman entity that needs to be exterminated to restore a sense of harmony and order to the world.
In reality, we’re all just people. Trying to get by and get on with things before we shuffle off this mortal coil once our number is up.
Coexisting peacefully really isn’t as complicated as it’s made out to be. Being kind to others is far from difficult.
We’re all different, and that’s fine — it doesn’t need to be fire and brimstone and bloodbaths and battalions.
So when you meet someone different from you, just share the soap.
Mehmet Tarhan
Mehmet Tarhan’s supporters
Scottie's Playtime 